Home›Landmark Cases›Decision Era›By Century›21st centuryBrowse By21st centuryThis dimension groups landmark cases by the era in which they were decided. Wikipedia's own example dates one leading case's description to "1914," when "Canadian jurist Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy" wrote his account of what makes a case leading. Browsing by decision era lets a visitor compare landmark cases decided in the same period.21st centurySourcesComments (0)Reader Challenges (0)21st centuryFilter Results20 entriesLegal SystemAllCivil Law (6)Common Law (3)German Legal System (1)Indian Legal System (2)Law of Kenya (1)Law of Peru (1)Law of Tanzania (1)Law of the United States (1)Mixed Systems (1)Public International Law (3)CourtAllBundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) (1)Constitutional Court of Korea (1)Constitutional Court of South Africa (1)European Court of Human Rights (1)Federal Supreme Court of Brazil (1)Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1)International Criminal Court (1)Permanent Court of Arbitration (1)Supreme Court of India (2)Supreme Court of Kenya (1)Supreme Court of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (1)Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (1)Tokyo District Court (1)United States Supreme Court (4)Authoring JuristAllAlbie Sachs (1)Anthony Kennedy (2)Antonin Scalia (1)D. Y. Chandrachud (1)Group TreeAllEuropean Union Law and European Human Rights Court Cases (1)Free Expression, Religion and Conscience Cases (1)Inter-American, African and Inter-State Dispute Cases (1)International Criminal and War Crimes Trials (1)Liberty, Emergency Powers and Social Rights Cases (1)Privacy, Reproduction and Personal Autonomy Cases (1)Sexual Orientation, Marriage and Workplace Equality Cases (4)Country or JurisdictionAllBrazil (1)Colombia (1)Costa Rica (1)France (1)Germany (1)India (2)Japan (1)Kenya (1)Netherlands (2)Russia (1)South Africa (1)South Korea (1)Taiwan (1)Tanzania (1)United States (3)Show ResultsBrowseCompareSelect all 20ADPF 132 and ADI 4277 (Brazil)21st centuryAviation Security Act case21st centuryBarrios Altos v Peru21st centuryC-355/2006 (Colombia)21st centuryChristine Goodwin v United Kingdom21st centuryCitizens United v Federal Election Commission21st centuryDistrict of Columbia v Heller21st centuryJehovah's Witnesses Extremism Case (Russia)21st centuryJustice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India21st centuryKelo v. City of New London21st centuryMinister of Home Affairs v Fourie21st centuryMtikila v Tanzania21st centuryNavtej Singh Johar v. Union of India21st centuryObergefell v Hodges21st centuryProsecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo21st centuryRaila Odinga v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission21st centurySouth China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China)21st centurySouth Korea Conscientious Objection Case (2018)21st centuryTai Ji Men Case (Taiwan)21st centuryUnification Church Dissolution Case (Japan)21st centurySourcesR v Oakes (Wikipedia)tier 2WikipediaContains: R v Oakes, Category placement - in-categoryView the SourceCommonwealth v Tasmania (Wikipedia)tier 2WikipediaContains: Commonwealth v Tasmania, Category placement - in-categoryView the SourceSouth China Sea Arbitration (Wikipedia)tier 2WikipediaContains: South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), Category placement - in-categoryView the SourceGriswold v. Connecticut (Wikipedia)tier 2Contains: Griswold v. ConnecticutEntick v Carrington (Wikipedia)tier 2Contains: Entick v CarringtonNavtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (Wikipedia)tier 2Contains: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of IndiaInternational Military Tribunal for the Far East (Wikipedia)tier 2Contains: Tokyo Trials (International Military Tribunal for the Far East)Comments (0)No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.Sign in to join the discussion.Reader Challenges (0)No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.